Section 10AB of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 10AB is Mahaveer Prasad Jain v. CIT (172 ITR 331), cited in 48 of the 190 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10AB

Mahaveer Prasad Jain v. CIT
172 ITR 331 · 1988 · High Court
48
citing judgments

A litigant should not be made to suffer adverse consequences solely due to the bona fide mistake or negligence of their counsel, and they must be provided a fair and proper opportunity to present their case on its merits.

Self Employers Institution v. CIT
247 ITR 18 · 2001 · High Court
47
citing judgments

The Commissioner is justified in rejecting an application for registration or recognition (e.g., under sections 12A, 12AA, or 80G) if there is no material to establish the genuineness of the trust's activities or if no charitable work has been undertaken during the relevant period.

Fifth Generation Education Society v. CIT
185 ITR 634 · 1990 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G are distinct from assessment; issues relevant to assessing income under Section 11 cannot be grounds for rejecting an application for registration or approval.

Nagaraj & Others v. State of Karnataka & Another
4 SCC 595 · 1994 · High Court
43
citing judgments

Substantial justice must prevail over mere procedural technicalities, and rules of procedure or technicalities of law should not obstruct the course of justice. Courts, especially higher courts, can rectify orders passed under a mistake or erroneous assumption, guided by equity and fairness.

CIT, 172 ITR 331(MP), Concord India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi
181 ITR 183 · High Court
33
citing judgments

A party cannot be made to suffer for the mistake of their counsel. This principle is applied to condone delays in filing appeals when the delay is attributable to the counsel's error.

Aurora Educational Society v. CCIT
20 Taxmann.com 46 · 2012 · Reported
31
citing judgments

The scope and amplitude of Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act and its applicable provisos, rules, and forms are the subject of examination in relation to applications for approval.

Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT
93 Taxmann 645 · 1997 · Supreme Court
25
citing judgments

An institution or fund is deemed to be one to which section 80G applies even if it incurs expenditure of a religious nature not exceeding five per cent. of its total income, overriding Explanation 3 to section 80G(5)(ii).

Mattel Toys India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
34 Taxmann.com 203 · 2013 · ITAT
22
citing judgments

An assessee is not barred from deviating from a method applied in its own transfer pricing study for the current year if the facts of the case warrant the adoption of other methods to determine the arm's length price of international transactions.

Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council v. 6th ITO
68 ITD 95 · 1999 · ITAT
18
citing judgments

Expenses incurred outside India for promotional activities benefit the entire trade in India, thus satisfying the requirement for application of income for charitable purposes within India, even if the expenditure occurs abroad.

Jamsetji Tata Trust v. Jt. DIT (Exemption)
148 ITD 388 · 2014 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

An education grant given to Indian students for studying abroad fulfills the conditions for application of money to claim exemption under Section 11, even if the final execution of the purpose occurs outside India. This does not constitute a violation of Section 11(1)(c) or an application of funds outside India.

Judgments on Section 10AB

Nagar Yuvak Shikshan Sanstha Airoli, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1688/MUM/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Nagar Yuvak Shikshan Vs. The Commissioner Of Sanstha, Airoli, Income Tax (Exemption) Datta Meghe College Of Room No.601, 6Th Floor, Engineering, Sector 3 Cumbala Hill, Mtnl Tele Airoli Navi Building Pedder Road, Mumbai – 400708 Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumbala Hill Mumbai – 400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaatn1833A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Manoj G. Moryani Respondent By : S. Srinivasu Date Of Hearing 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Exemption) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2023- 24. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Ex-Parte Order Passed For Rejection Of Approval U/S. 80G Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law; 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income (Exemption), Mumbai Has Issued Notice On Email Id, The Mail Id Belongs To Ex-Employee Shri Vijay Nerrulkar Who Was Retired & Notice Was Not Properly Served To The Assessee Trust, Therefore Rejection Of Approval & Passing Of Ex-Parte Order Is Unjustified, Unwarranted & Excessive;

For Appellant: Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: S. Srinivasu
Section 10ASection 80G

New Horizon Education Society, Navi Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1522/MUM/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, New Horizon Education Vs. The Cit(Exemption) Society, Anand Nagar Room No.601, 6Th Floor, Kavesar, Ghodbunder Cumbala Hill, Mtnl Road, Thane, West, Building, Pedder Road, Thane – 400615 Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumbala Hill Mumbai – 400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabtn2615F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Manoj G. Moryani Respondent By : S. Srinivasu Date Of Hearing 19.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Exemption) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2022- 23. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Ex-Parte Order Passed For Rejection Of Approval U/S 80G Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law; 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income (Exemption), Mumbai Has Issued Notice On Email Id, The Mail Id Belongs To Ex-Employee Shri Vijay Nerulkar Who Was Retired & Notice Was Not Properly Served To The Assessee Trust, Therefore Rejection Of Approval & Passing Of Ex-Parte Order Is Unjustified, Unwarranted & Excessive; 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income (Exemption), Mumbai Has Made All The Correspondence As Well

For Appellant: Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: S. Srinivasu
Section 10ASection 80G